Tuesday, 30 March 2010

This article presents an analysis of the proposed US law, The 'International Violence Against Women' Act.

General Critique:The proposed International Violence Against Women Act represents a naked power grab to impose a radical gender perspective on U.S. foreign policy, export an anti-family agenda, and satisfy a favored political constituency – at a $1 billion expense to U.S. taxpayers.Research shows persons who are in a stable, married relationship are at far lower risk of experiencing domestic violence. But I-VAWA provides a $1 billion blueprint to destabilize the family, the most important social and economic institution to women, men, and children around the world. This is particularly true in low-income countries that have weak social service programs, no retirement system, and no state-funded unemployment insurance.I-VAWA would promote social disintegration by defining “violence” in the broadest possible terms, advancing the shibboleth that only men are abusive in partner relationships, providing incentives to women to make accusations of abuse, breaking up the family, and eventually forcing persons to become dependent on the welfare state.In addition, I-VAWA would serve to trample on internationally-recognized civil liberties, including those enumerated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, by undermining due process for the accused, discriminating against male victims, and providing a pretext for heavy-handed state intervention into family matters.

Detailed Analysis:1. Makes the breath-taking assumption that violence against men is unworthy of concern. (According to the World Health Organization, 1.1 million men and 500,000 women die of violence-related causes each year. )

2. Stereotypes and vilifies men as abusers. (Research shows men and women are equally likely to engage in partner violence, and at least half of all partner violence is mutual. )

3. Ignores the fact that female-initiated violence (e.g, a slap or punch) has been found to be the leading cause of female domestic violence injury.

4. Presents a series of Findings that are one-sided, unverifiable, false, or flatly Orwellian.

5. Presents a Statement of Policy using vague language that is easily susceptible to ideological interpretation, e.g., “female empowerment” and “gender integration”

6. Expansively defines domestic violence to include “psychological harm,” which in practice encompasses any marital tiff or lover’s quarrel.

7. Defines violence to encompass “violence perpetrated or condoned by the government” – a phrase that opens the door to require governments to fund abortion on demand (feminists often claim that lack of access to abortion services represents “violence against women”).

8. Provides sweeping powers to the Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, powers that are likely to be used to usurp normal foreign policy-making procedures.

9. Advocates that programs “shall consider the safety of women and girls as a primary concern in deciding how to design, implement, monitor, and evaluate programs.” (Section 112). In practice, this serves as a pretext to diminish due process protections for persons falsely accused.

10. Promotes law enforcement approaches such as restraining orders, which are known to be ineffective in stopping violence and routinely violate the civil liberties of the accused.

11. Funds training efforts to change “social norms” and “community attitudes.” Experience proves such programs are highly biased in their content and ideological in their purpose.

Sources:

World Health Organization. World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva: 2001. Table A.2.

Straus MA. Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations. Presented May 23, 2006 at New York University. Table 3. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41H3a.pdf

Friday, 26 March 2010

Fascinating article by Dr Louann Brizendine about the biological differences in the male & female brain, with a positive message:."The male brain and female brain are not likely to change anytime soon, & it makes more sense to deal with these brain realities than to argue with them or ignore them. The best advice I have for women is make peace with the male brain. Let men be men."

Tuesday, 23 March 2010

'Harriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday. The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks. The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction.The six per cent figure relates to reported cases. In fact, the conviction rate for those actually charged with rape is nearly two out of three, higher than comparable figures for other violent crime. The report's view is doubly humiliating for Miss Harman because it was she who set up the review. Instead of condemning low conviction rates and demanding legal reforms - as ministers have repeatedly done over the past six years - Lady Stern said there should be more help for victims and greater use of police intelligence to track down men who serially attack and rape strangers.Her report said: 'The figure for convictions of those charged with rape as the term is normally used is actually 58 per cent. There is concern that the six per cent figure can make victims feel it is not worth reporting.'

Last summer the watchdog UK Statistics Authority accused Miss Harman of 'undermining public trust' by exaggerating the pay gap between men and women. Baroness Stern's report criticised 'sharp failures' by police in the cases of John Worboys, a taxi driver who was convicted of 12 attacks on women and may have committed more than 100, and Kirk Reid, suspected of 71 offences.It called for sharing of police intelligence across London boroughs and for forces to consider specialist rape units.Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.Lady Stern also said there should be an end to targets for rape convictions for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service; better forensic examination of complainants; better video evidence schemes for witnesses, improved compensation procedures for victims, and more explanation of sexual offences law to young people.'

Thursday, 18 March 2010

"What is most disgusting about current political correctness on campus is that its proponents have managed to convince their students and the media that they are authentic Sixties radicals. The idea is preposterous. Political correctness, with its fascist speech codes and puritanical sexual regulations, is a travesty of Sixties progressive values."

"White middle-class girls at the elite colleges and universities seem to want the world handed to them on a platter. They have been sheltered, coddled, and flattered. Having taught at a wide variety of institutions over my ill-starred career, I have observed that working-class or lower-middle-class girls, who are from financially struggling families and who must take a patchwork of menial off-campus jobs to stay in school, are usually the least hospitable to feminist rhetoric. They see life as it is and have fewer illusions about sex. It is affluent, upper-middle class students who most spout the party line - as if the grisly hyperemotionalism of feminist jargon satisfies their hunger for meaningful experience outside their eventless upbringing. In the absence of war, invent one."

"It is tremendously difficult to convince feminist professional women of the existence of unconscious or subliminal erotic communication. As my friend Bruce Benderson says, their middle class world has "no subtext."...That men can satisfy their desires on an inert or unconscious object seems intolerable to such women, though it is a fact of life, palatable or not. Male sexual functioning does not depend on female response. And the illicit is always highly charged."

"Feminist confidence that the whole human race can be "re-educated" to totally eliminate the possibility of rape is pure folly...Wave after wave of boys hit puberty every year. Do feminists, with their multicultural pretensions, really envision a massive export of white bourgeois good manners all around the world? Speak of imperialism!"

"A major failing of most feminist ideology is its dumb, ungenerous stereotyping of men as tyrants and abusers, when in fact-as I know full well, from my own mortifying lesbian experience- men are tormented by women's flirtatiousness and hemming and hawing, their manipulations and changeableness, their humiliating rejections. Cock teasing is a universal reality. It is part of women's merciless testing and cold-eyed comparison shopping for potential mates. Men will do anything to win the favor of women. Women literally size up men- "What can you show me?"- in bed and out. If middle class feminists think they conduct their love lives perfectly rationally, without any instinctual influences from biology, they are imbeciles."

"(Andrea) Dworkin's blanket condemnation of fellatio as disgusting and violent should make every man furious. (Catharine) MacKinnon and Dworkin are victim-mongers, ambulance chasers, atrocity addicts. MacKinnon begins every argument from big, flawed premises such as "male supremacy" or "misogyny," while Dworkin spouts glib Auschwitz metaphors at the drop of a bra. Here's one of their typical maxims: 'The pornographers rank with Nazis and Klansmen in promoting hatred and violence.' Anyone who could write such a sentence knows nothing about pornography or Nazism... In arguing that a hypothetical physical safety on the streets should take precedence over the democratic principle of free speech, MacKinnon aligns herself with the authoritarian Soviet comissars. She would lobotomize the village in order to save it."

"Feminist anti-porn discourse virtually always ignores the gigantic gay male porn industry, since any mention of the latter would bring crashing to the ground the absurd argument that pornography is by definition subordination of women...Far from poisoning the mind, pornography shows the deepest truth about sexuality, stripped of romantic veneer....What feminists denounce as woman's humiliating total accessibility in porn is actually her elevation to high priestess of a pagan paradise garden, where the body has become a bountiful fruit tree where growth and harvest are simultaneous."

"Feminism's main problem for the last twenty years has been that it is incapable of appreciating art. There is no aesthetics in feminism. All there is is a social agenda. Art is made a servant to a prefab social agenda."

"Let's get rid of Infirmary Feminism, with it's bedlam of bellyachers, anorexics, bulimics, depressives, rape victims, and incest survivors. Feminism has become a catch-all vegetable drawer where bunches of clingy sob sisters can store their moldy neuroses."

"The tension between the genders is essential to our survival as a species. Perhaps in some futuristic sci-fi totalitarian feminist society men would pee sitting down and be unable to screw without viagra, and the women would all take steroids and lift weights. Through the use of the right drugs, nature could be totally subverted. But why bother?"

Wednesday, 17 March 2010

A famous televison newswoman told this joke last month at a fund-raising dinner for a women's college: A woman needed a brain transplant. Her doctor said two brains were available, a woman's brain for $500 and a man's brain for $5,000. Why the big price difference? Answer: The woman's brain has been used.Most in the audience laughed, but one man stood up and booed. What's wrong? asked a woman at his table. The man said, "Just substitute woman, black or Jew for 'man' in that joke, and tell me how it sounds."At about the same time, American Greeting Cards launched an ad campaign in Newsweek, Life and other magazines. One ad featured a "Thelma and Louise" greeting card, pasted into the magazines, that said on the front: "Men are always whining about how we are suffocating them." The punch line inside the card was this: "Personally, I think if you can hear them whining, you're not pressing hard enough on the pillow."The newswoman, who is a friend, seemed shocked when I phoned and raised questions about her joke. "The poor, sensitive white male," she said. A spokesman for the greeting card company saw nothing wrong with a humorous card about a woman killing a man. He faxed a statement saying the card had been pretested successfully, and besides, "We've heard no protests from consumers who are buying and using this card." But would American Greetings print a card with the sexes reversed, so the humor came from men joking about suffocating a woman? No, said the spokesman, because 85 percent to 90 percent of cards are bought by women. There is no market for a reverse card.

In truth, no man could get up at a fancy banquet and tell a joke about how stupid women are. And a greeting card joking about a woman's murder would be very unlikely, even if surveys showed that millions of males were eager to exchange lighthearted gender-killing greetings. The obvious is true: A sturdy double standard has emerged in the gender wars.

"There used to be a certain level of good-natured teasing between the sexes," says Christina Sommers, author of "Who Stole Feminism?" "Now even the most innocent remark about women will get you in trouble, but there's no limit at all to what you can say about men."

Men's rights groups phone me a lot, and I tell them my general position on these matters: The last thing we need in America is yet another victim group, this one made up seriously aggrieved males. But these groups do have an unmissable point about double standards. On the "Today" show last November, Katie Couric suddenly deviated from perkiness and asked a jilted bride, "Have you considered castration as an option?" Nobody seemed to object. Fred Hayward, a men's rights organizer, says: "Imagine the reaction if Matt Lauer had asked a jilted groom, 'Wouldn't you just like to rip her uterus out?'"

The double standard is rooted in identity politics and fashionable theories about victimization: Men as a group are oppressors; jokes that oppressors use to degrade the oppressed must be taken seriously and suppressed. Jokes by the oppressed against oppressors, however, are liberating and progressive. So while sexual harassment doctrine cracks down on the most harmless jokes about women, very hostile humor about men keeps expanding with almost no objections.Until recently, for example, the 3M company put out post-it notes with the printed message: "Men have only two faults: everything they say and everything they do." Anti-male greeting cards are increasingly graphic, with some of the most hostile coming from Hallmark Cards' Shoebox Division. (Sample: "Men are scum … Excuse me. For a second there I was feeling generous.") Detroit News columnist Cathy Young sees a rising tide of male-bashing, including "All Men Are Bastards" and "Men We Love to Hate" calendars, and a resentful "It's-always-his-fault" attitude pervading women's magazines.Commercial attempts to increase the amount of sexual antagonism in America are never a good idea. And if you keep attacking men as a group, they will eventually start acting as a group, something we should fervently avoid. But the worst impact of all the male-bashing is on the young.

Barbara Wilder-Smith, a teacher and researcher in the Boston area, was recently quoted in several newspapers on how deeply anti-male attitudes have affected the schools. When she made "Boys Are Good" T-shirts for boys in her class, all 10 of the female student teachers under her supervision objected to the message. (One, she said, was wearing a button saying "So many men, so little intelligence.")

"My son can't even wear the shirt out in his back yard," she said. "People see it and object strongly and shout things." On the other hand, she says, nobody objects when the girls wear shirts that say "Girls Rule" or when they taunt the boys with a chant that goes, "Boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider; girls go to college to get more knowledge." Worse, she says, many adolescent boys object to the "Boys Are Good" shirts too, because they have come to accept the cultural message that something is seriously wrong with being a male.

"The time is ripe for people to think about the unspoken anti-male 'ism' in our colleges and schools," she says. And in the rest of the popular culture as well.

Wednesday, 3 March 2010

"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed... I was in a class of nine and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives… This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing. It has become a kind of religion that you can't criticise because then you become a traitor to the great cause, which I am not. The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests. Men seem to be so cowed that they can't fight back, and it is time they did."

WASHINGTON- A study commissioned by the National Organization for Women released yesterday concludes that men are no good.Previous studies have found that men are no good in specific areas, including interpersonal relationships, child care, and household chores, but the report released yesterday, “An Examination of the Worth of Men,” is believed to be the first comprehensive study to conclude that men are no good generally.

Tuesday, 2 March 2010

Around a year ago, I finally came out of the closet. I admitted my true nature and openly joined forces with others in the same despised minority as myself, braving all the contempt andloathing I knew this would bring down on my head. I joined the Men’s Movement. Worse, I began speaking and writing about “Men’s Issues.”This “defense of the indefensible” should surprise nobody, since I have never had much common sense. I have written controversial articles and books since 1959 and have had the honor of seeing myself called every possible nasty name in the English language by every gang of fanatics that infests this planet, from Christian Crusade to CSICOP. Joining the Men's Movement just indicates that at 62 I still do things as undiplomatic as I did in my 20s; I have graduated from a Perfect Young Fool to a Perfect Old Fool without ever passing through Maturity or Pragmatic Caution. Curiously, most of the amusing and usually quasi-illiterate hatemail I have received for my current defense of men comes not from women but from other men. I would say about 90% of it, infact, comes from men. Even after profound study and meditation, I cannot understand this. I can only think of the Jews who have become leaders in the American Nazi Party - several cases have gotten into print, and one committed suicide when a New York newspaper documented his Jewish family tree. (Another Jewish Nazi changed his name when a Chicago paper exposed his Hebraic ancestry.) Like those Jews, who hated their “Jewishness” more than the original Nazis had, some men evidently hate themselves and other men even more than the Radical Feminists do. I recall the insane but totally convincing character of “Buffalo Bill” in Thomas Harris’ brilliant The Silence of the Lambs - the fellow who wants to escape malehood so desperately that he tries to make a female skin to hide in, when he can’t get a sex-change operation. Maybe Harris understands male self-hate better than I do. In all the hate mail I have received for writing and speaking about androphobia, nobody has attempted to refute my central point: after nearly 100 years of Intelligence Testing, no psychologist has proven any IQ difference between females and males. High and low IQs appear equally in both genders. Alleged male inferiority, like alleged black inferiority, remains pure fiction,without one jot of experimental evidence to support it. In contin-ually insisting on the mental deficiency of men, Christine Craft, Carol Hemingway and other Radical Feminists merely copy Hitler’s technique of the Big Lie. Of course, I know that, like the Nazi Big Lie, male“inferiority” will go on getting repeated endlessly, no matter how much scientific evidence contradicts it. Politics does not rest upon scientific validations. Politics rests upon passion and prejudice; otherwise, this planet might become suddenly stark staring sane. To put it mildly, men who hate men, like women who hate men, seem to be working on inner psychological problems, not on scientific research. In this connection, I have found much food for thought in the Rodney King case. That crescendo of barbarities, which unleashed the most violent riots to shake the U.S. in the 20th Century, perfectly illustrates the neurological grid, or reality-tunnel, that maintains androphobia, The media can see (i.e., can perceive or recognize) - and, according to polls widely quoted in Time and on TV,the majority of ordinary citizens can see - that Rodney King suffered that terrible beating, and the jurors acquitted the perpetrators, because of the lurking and vicious racism of oursociety. A conditioned self-censorship “built into” our brains by three decades of Radical Feminist intimidation, however, blocks an equally elementary perception. Nobody on the airwaves or in print can see, or can allow themselves to notice, that the Rodney King atrocity also owes a great deal to the equally vicious sexism which the androphobes have infiltrated into all the media in the past 30 years. Nonetheless, those who at least try to think honestly and try to transcend the prejudices of their times, might feel a distinct Shock (or “Awakening” experience) if they sincerely. attempt two simple mind exercises:l. In memory, re-run the infamous video one more time, and try to see it with Rodney King as a female. Does this savage beating still seem possible? With 21 other officers watching and none objecting? Think about it and really try to get beyond conditioned perception. Police violence against Black women does occur, of course, but I can recall no case where the brutality reached the same level of sadistic frenzy as in this case, and female officers watched impassively. Can you?2. Imagine that incredible Simi Valley jury watching this video, with Rodney King still as a woman. Would even those rednecks have acquitted the cops in that case? Could they look at the video tape and convince themselves that what they saw did not constitute excessive force? “Sociopaths” and “drunks” commit violence against women, and we all experience horror and revulsion. But every day allegedly normal people commit violence against men like Rodney King, and many of us, like the Simi jury, can still find reasons to “excuse” such atrocities. Both Dan Quayle and Bill Clinton have had to answer charges of cowardice for having enough elementary sanity to avoid the war in Vietnam, but nobody accused Geraldine Ferraro of the same metaphysical “crime” for not volunteering to go over and get her arms or legs blown off in that hellish bout of national lunacy. Similarly, in the Michael Hay case in Singapore, the overwhelming majority of Americans supported the barbaric caning of this young man, by a martial arts expert (a guy who really knows how to hurt you) even though(a) Hay never had a jurytrial(b) Singapore justice has a notorious reputation for proceeding from accusation to punishment without many legal niceties(c) Hay claimed his confession had resulted from torture; and supporting evidence came from others who said the Singaporepolice regularly obtain confessions that way.I can only conclude that Americans have suffered so much brainwashing by the Radical Feminists that any man anywhere now has a “presumption of guilt” instead of the traditional Anglo-American “presumption of innocence.” But just change the gender and try to believe the same result. If the Singapore authorities decided to have young American female caned by a martial arts professional, without even a jury trial, how many Americans would have supported this with equal enthusiasm? Would our govemment have limited itself only to tepid protest in a polite and conciliatory language? Would Feminists have remained silent, as they did when Haygot caned, or would they have howled to high heaven, if it happened to a girl his age? As the sociologist Lawrence Diggs has said, racism remains totally visible whether from whites against blacks or from blacks against whites, but sexism remains totally invisible if it comes from women against men. We would think it pathetic but perfectly “normal” and natural if Danny Quayle or Bill Clinton had to spend their lives in wheelchairs like Ron Kovic, but it only becomes monstrous and unthinkable if you imagine ithappening to a pure, noble, female creature - like Tonya Harding, say...We only regard our allegedly sub-human males as expendable, like laboratory animals. Women we see as truly and fully human,and hence not mere “cannon fodder.” Even today, after 30 yearsof Radical Feminist agit-prop women have hold any rank in the Army - except front-line combat which we still reserve for our“sub-human” males. Consider this little irony: Diggs, the sociologist cited above,says that when he writes about this, certain people always accuse him of defending the “white male power structure.” Lawrence Diggs does not belong to any “white” power structure. He has black skin - in Aristotelian language, he “is” Black - and he merely reports what he has seen first hand of the neuro-psychological damage that the combination of racism and sexism has done to young black males in this country. Damned for their blackness and damned again for their maleness, these boys and young men represent the Heart of Darkness for ourtimes. George Bush took the negative archetype, Black Male - two terror signals in one image - gave it the name “Willie Horton,” carefully repeated the negative conditioning hour after hour onTV, and frightened the masses into electing him, just as similar anti-Semitic stereotypes put Adolph Hitler into power 50 yearsearlier. The police who beat Rodney King probably never “saw” him in an existential sense; they saw the Monster that Bush had invoked and called “Willie Horton.” The Giant Black Male, with a half-image of King Kong in the psychic background. If this point still seems obscure (or deliberately perverse), try one more Reality Check, to determine whether you’ve suffered brainwashing or I have: Try to think of how many movies you have seen in the last ten years in which the heroine attacks a man, bops him upside thehead with a blunt instrument, punches him in the face or the gut, shoots him dead, or commits similar violence against several men in succession. Then try - really hard, now - to think of any movies in which the leading actress does not at least slap one man’s face. Can you recall even one such film? Made since 1970?A while back, I thought I had, in fact found one happy case of nonviolence toward males - The Fisher King. But then I looked at it again, and saw that in the climax, the heroine slaps the hero as hard as she can - a major assault - before they kiss. He, of course, doesn’t mind being smashed in the face like a slave in the Old South, and acts merely grateful for the kiss. Males, in the new mythos, must be bashed, at least a little, in every film and TV show. And, of course, they never show pain. The directors evidently wish us to think they don ’t even feel pain, like other inanimate objects. Feminists, of both the Radical and the rational varieties, complain rightly about the violence against women in movies. But they don’t see - they can’t see or won’t see - the much more prevalent violence against males. And nobody except Lawrence Diggs, Dr. Alfred Ehlenberger and Warren Farrell has ever discussed the statistical fact that, in real life just as in films, all men (not just black men) suffer violence, both from women and from other men, much more often than women do. This fact remains censored by as many taboos and “systems of denial” in our society as homosexuality did in the Victorian age, or alcoholism in a dysfunctional family.As psychologist Kathi Cleary writes (Men In Crisis): "Most women are very aware of a man’s sexism but totally blind to their own... When you find yourself becoming uncomfortable with male-bashing jokes, comments and conversation, you’ll also find yourself more aware of other women’s sexism. Point it out... (But) you may end up laying some friendships on the line. For some reason, women seem to feel that an acknowledgment of their sexism toward men will send feminism back to the dark ages." Dr. Cleary can see female sexism (or androphobia, as I call it)because she has a sane attitude toward feminism, as a crusade for justice and not just another Hate Group. To repeat one of my favorite lines, just as Marx called anti-Semitism “the socialism of fools”, I think anti-andrism will appear (in a saner future) as the feminism of imbeciles. It has nothing to do with any legitimate struggle for women’s rights, anymore than Nazi anti-Semitism helped Germans resolve any of the real injustices piled on them after World War I. Psychologists like Dr. Farrell have just begun to calculate the total damage androphobia has inflicted on men; they show us statistics of the suicide rate of young males (six times that of females); the rapidly rising male heart attack rate; the graphs showing equal life expectancy for men and women from the dawn of statistical science until the 1920s and the dizzying decline to the present where men have seven years less life expectancy than women, etc. One could almost predict such statistics a priori: No group can live normal, healthy lives in a society which hates their guts, and tells them so daily. The highest suicide rate, incidentally, appears in white males, who make up 72 per cent of all suicides. I think this results from the fact that our official Opinion Makers have selected white males, like the “witches” in medieval Europe, to become the one group so Indisputedly Damned that not even the most wild-eyed libertarian dares to defend them. The most frequent charge against any of us who oppose androphobia says that in defending all men we perforce defend those indefensible white men, which our society’s mythos simply does not allow. Diggs speaks of hearing this constantly, despite his Negritude. Like the Jews in Germany again, white males always appear rich, robust and comfortable in the popular media; only other people (non-white, non-male) might pass as poor, sick or troubled. My father, although white and male, remained a poor workingman all his life. He not only earned less money than Rockefeller; he leamed a hell of a lot less than any of the Radical Feministswho write blockbuster best-sellers about how all men have exploited them. He never hit my mother, or me, and tried to prevent her from beating up on me. He gave her his whole paycheck every pay-day, and never drank except on holidays, when he drank a little but never enough to get drunk. At least, that’s my memory. I must have hallucinated, of course. All white males have great wealth and a vicious streak a mile wide. Therefore,my father never existed, I guess. I just emerged from the void. Yeah, sure.Under the cha-cha pent-house where Robin Morgan and a gaggle of other Radical Feminists hold a cocktail party to complain about their exquisite emotional sufferings, way down in the dark, in the alley, among the discarded condoms and the rubbish, you will find our new Jews: a group of males, some of them white, sleeping in the freezing rain. A rat bites one and he cries out, briefly, in his sleep. But the exquisite ladies do not hear that, up in the pent-house where the Intelligentsia meet to manipulate the media and mold the lines of thought and image that control social perception. The rain continues to fall on the homeless men. Their bodies and minds destroyed in Vietnam, these dehumanized creatures remain beyond pity and beyond compassion, beyond the perimeter of the human commonwealth, because of the shape of their genitals. We must not consider Radical Feminism a crazy Hate group, of course. We must accept it as chic; and as ultra-modern; and as Politically Correct. Only the people who hate on the basis of nose-shape or skin-color deserve the label of bigots, of course. Of course.

The Librarian

“I have no doubt that, someday, the distortion of truth by the radical feminists of our time will be seen to have been the greatest intellectual crime of the second half of the twentieth century. At the present time, however, we still live under the aegis of that crime, and calling attention to it is an act of great moral courage” - Professor Howard S. Schwartz, of Oakland University in Michigan, USA, 2001